November 14, 2008

-6:19: ABC has glossy graphics swirling Ayers's book "Fugitive Days" at us. The book is being "re-released." Oh! So this is a book tour.

-5:58: The interviewer, Chris Cuomo, insists "you did have a meaningful relationship with Barack Obama, didn't you?" Ayers does nothing but evade. He knew him like thousands of others, and "like millions of others worldwide, I wish I knew him better." That answer is pure bullshit.

-5:16: Cuomo attempts to follow up: "You used the term 'family friend'..." Cuomo is obviously working from notes, trying to act the part of a reporter capable of asking follow-up questions, and Ayers has to tell us where the phrase "family friend" came from, because it's not something Ayers just said, it's something he wrote in an afterword to his book. Ayers then launches into his prepped statement about how he didn't want to talk during the campaign, when people were using a "dishonest narrative," but he knew Obama on a "professional" level, like "thousands of other people." "Thousands of other people" is Ayers's favorite phrase.

-4:12. Yeah, he and Obama were on a board together, Ayers concedes quickly when pressed, then moves to the purely abstract level: This notion of "guilt by association" is wrong. And you know what the "interesting" thing is? Voters didn't buy the argument of guilt by association. Ugh! I don't care about your political analysis! Tell us the facts that you know. As for the shortcomings of guilt by association, we can do our own analysis. What you have that we don't is the information about the substance of the relationship, and you're being as slippery as possible. You think we don't notice, don't you? Ayers is relying on our dullness.

-3:11: Cuomo says that people do want to know about a candidate's relationships. This sets Ayers off justifying his actions during the Vietnam War era: Part of the "dishonest narrative" was to "demonize" him. "Let's remember, what you call a 'violent past' -- that was at a time when thousands of people were being murdered by our government ever month." Ha! I told you "thousands of people" is his favorite phrase. "And those of us who fought to end that war were actually on the right side. So if we want to replay that history, I would reject the whole notion that demonizing me or the Weather Underground is relevant."

-2:34: Cuomo cuts off Ayers -- who was about to plunge into a second point -- to try to deal with the question whether Ayers's violent past is relevant to what we think of Obama. Cuomo has a hypothetical: If McCain had launched his political career in the home of some anti-abortion activist who'd blown up clinics -- "but never hurt anyone" -- don't you think we'd find that relevant? Ayers's argument is that during the Vietnam War, the despicable acts were being carried out by our government. So then, the anti-abortion terrorism would be fine too if only we believe the abortion is murder? We can see that Ayers is simply unrepentant, and the hypothetical falls by the wayside.

-1:53: Ayers says he never hurt anyone (as if co-conspirators are not responsible for each other's acts) and repeats his oft-quoted self-justification: "I don't think we did enough." He adds: "Just as today, I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars. And I think we must all recognize the injustice of it and do more." So if Obama associates with Ayers now, he is associating with someone who thinks the United States has conducted and continues to conduct despicable unjust wars that must be stopped. If Obama had presented himself as having this kind of militant, anti-war attitude -- this fundamental belief that the American government is doing evil in this world -- he would never have been trusted to become Commander in Chief.

-1:19: Pressed again on the relationship, Ayers lectures us again at the abstract level: "guilt by association... has a long and tragic history in America." See how he makes that rhetorical move every time? He's asked about something specific about himself, and he switches the subject to something much larger -- and more abstract. He also loves to remind us about America's failings. Don't look there. Look here.

-1:05: Now, he's driveling on about how Obama is willing to listen to "a lot of people, from a lot of walks of life." Oh, I would guess Obama is willing to talk to thousands of people.

-0:44: Cuomo sees an opening. Oh, so then Obama sought you out. He wanted to hear from you. That means something. Ayers denies that Obama sought him out. "The truth is we came together in the civic community, around issues of school improvement, around issues of fighting for the rights of poor neighborhoods to have jobs and housing and so on. And that's the full extent of our relationship." That is Ayers's best point, really, and it's odd that he didn't say that in the beginning. If Ayers really cared primarily about helping Obama, he would have made this his central talking point.

-0:20: Ayers follows up that best point with a mini-rant, which ends the segment: "This idea that we need to know more -- like there's some dark, hidden secret link -- is just a myth, and it's a myth thrown up by people who wanted to kind of exploit the politics of fear, and I think it's a great credit to the American people that those politics were rejected. The idea that we should continue to be frightened and worried, you know, barricaded -- is falling down, and it should."

The idea that we need to know more is a myth? He's telling us we shouldn't need to know more, that we're paranoid or fear-mongers if we demand more information. Ridiculous! If we think there is more information, we get to ask. If there truth is there's nothing more to the story, fine. But to condemn us for wanting to know more is absurd.

We didn't find out enough about the man we elected President. We were made to feel that it was wrong to ask. I don't need to hear an avowed terrorist bitching about other people supposedly "exploit[ing] the politics of fear." A terrorist deals in fear, and I assume he'd like to control what inspires our fears. Fear the American government, he says, but don't fear Barack Obama.

How disappointing the Cuomo did not talk to Ayers at all about his agenda for school reform, and whether Obama agrees with those ideas. We can all agree that Obama does not support terrorists and repudiates what Ayers did with the WU. What is of most concern to me is what Obama thinks of Ayers' present work, which is just horrific for all that it is nonviolent.

AND: There is a second part to the interview. Here. It looks like the "book tour" part of the interview that Cuomo alludes to in Part 1. Feel free to watch it. Maybe I will later, but for now, life goes on without William Ayers.

How disappointing the Cuomo did not talk to Ayers at all about his agenda for school reform, and whether Obama agrees with those ideas. We can all agree that Obama does not support terrorists and repudiates what Ayers did with the WU. What is of most concern to me is what Obama thinks of Ayers' present work, which is just horrific for all that it is nonviolent.

Isn't it just a tad late to ask questions like this, now? Who cares? It's over.

All that mattered prior to 11/4 was getting Obama elected. Mission accomplished.

The truth about Obama's relationship with this scumbag - was it "palling around" or just "a guy in my neighborhood" were either relevant or irrelevant prior to the election.

Apparently, it was irrelevant to you Ann. Apparently, you didn't care enough before the election about this, so why would you care now? You voted for him, not me. He's your guy. You helped deliver him to the rest of us. In spite of my immense distaste for John McCain, I did not want to have a President who had the history of prior personal and/or business associations that Obama has.

But it was okay with you, right?

We can't turn back the clock now, no matter how much the MSM finally decides, from the safe harbor of its victory celebration party, that it might be a good idea to finally start asking tough questions now. Unless Ayers is offered a cabinet post or something, why bother with him at all. The Voters (such as you, Ann) have spoken. It doesn't matter what Ayers did in the past or how close he was to Obama. He is our President Elect and it is time to just shut up and take what's coming to us.

You all (the Obama voters) proclaimed Ayers to be a non-issue prior to the election. And in fact, let us not allow history to forget it was even considered "racist" to push the "domestic terrorist" angle. So therefore he should remain a non-issue.

He argued to me that Ayers is a respected member of the Education establishment, and thus concerns about him are over stated.

My response was that this high regard by the education establishment says a lot about the people in the education establishment and only highlights the reasons for concern.

An unrepentant communist terrorist is highly regarded by people like Obama and those trying to control our children's learning. You're right I'm concerned.

And apparently even the media didn't care about this unrepentant communist terrorist because Obama has written that his major philosophical influences were communists. Any association or ideology that threatened Obama must not be reported until he is safely out of the voters' reach.

An early sign of the decay of the mainstream media was its peculiar obsession with hiring every available spawn of a famous Democratic politician.

Do they not feel a little embarrassed over there at ABC that they choose to address an issue with potential to harm to a Democratic president-elect by sending the son of a Democratic icon and brother of a rising Democratic star? The obvious purpose here was to defuse the problem, not explore it.

Based on this account, it sounds like Ayers is clumsy at this game, however, so he revealed more than he was supposed to.

Unfortunately, it is too late to ask these questions.

Why? Don't we still want to know what we couldn't find out before the election? The last thing I want to tell the media or politicians is, "if you kept something concealed before we elected you, we have no right to hold it against you if we find out later."

Clinton tried to do this, remember? He covered up as much embarrassing information as he could, then used his election as the all-purpose answer when damaging stuff came out later, e.g. "The American people already made a judgment that this wasn't important."

Obviously the news media should have done this story months ago. They forced McCain/Palin to raise it, and as a political issue, it didn't work at all. This is the essence of the imbalance in coverage. The media will give one side, for free, all kinds of exposure for issues that help them, but will justify not exposing the other side's issues by saying "their campaign hasn't raised it." Which means, in practical terms, the disfavored side has to spend money on to get the issue out, and, further, it will be tainted by partisanship.

An early sign of the decay of the mainstream media was its peculiar obsession with hiring every available spawn of a famous Democratic politician.

Do they not feel a little embarrassed over there at ABC that they choose to address an issue with potential to harm to a Democratic president-elect by sending the son of a Democratic icon and brother of a rising Democratic star? The obvious purpose here was to defuse the problem, not explore it.

Based on this account, it sounds like Ayers is clumsy at this game, however, so he revealed more than he was supposed to.

Unfortunately, it is too late to ask these questions.

Why? Don't we still want to know what we couldn't find out before the election? The last thing I want to tell the media or politicians is, "if you kept something concealed before we elected you, we have no right to hold it against you if we find out later."

Clinton tried to do this, remember? He covered up as much embarrassing information as he could, then used his election as the all-purpose answer when damaging stuff came out later, e.g. "The American people already made a judgment that this wasn't important."

Obviously the news media should have done this story months ago. They forced McCain/Palin to raise it, and as a political issue, it didn't work at all. This is the essence of the imbalance in coverage. The media will give one side, for free, all kinds of exposure for issues that help them, but will justify not exposing the other side's issues by saying "their campaign hasn't raised it." Which means, in practical terms, the disfavored side has to spend money on to get the issue out, and, further, it will be tainted by partisanship.

Why would a Republican billionaire philanthropist give millions to a program associated with Bill Ayers? Why would the board be comprised of other Republicans? Why would McCain brag about being endorsed by Leonore Annenberg? Why would other members of that board contribute to McCain?

It's not really about Obama any more, but Ayers is still worth finding out about. The big question now is: Why was this terrorist mistaken for a respectable citizen by so many respectable citizens? It suggests something rotten in the heart of our elite culture, and we ought to know more about it.

It's too late to ask questions. Real answers about their relationship may have been meaningful during the Presidential primaries. But then again, no one seemed interested then. At least the people voting for Obama didn't seem interested.

Evidently for those who voted for him found out enough. Honestly Professor, I find it amazing you would make this kind of statement yet voted for him. If I have misinterpreted I'd be happy to be set right.

John Stodder: I guess I should have said that it is too late, in my opinion, for those who did not try to inform themselves on this relationship before the election.

You can certainly hold those people whom you think, in hindsight, were not honest - in answering questions and investigating this relationship accountable after the fact. I have already done that with my vote.

It will be intensely annoying for me to see people slap their foreheads now as it dawns on them that they were played. To me, this relationship was beyond troublesome. And the very fact that the media and Obama tried so hard to obscure the facts just reinforces my judgment.

I think, for a long, long time to come we will wonder just what we hold our candidates accountable for anymore.

Ann, you didn't follow Obama that closely. Sometimes he did slip up, and he DID present himself this way:

"If Obama had presented himself as having this kind of militant, anti-war attitude -- this fundamental belief that the American government is doing evil in this world -- he would never have been trusted to become Commander in Chief."

And those of us who fought to end that war were actually on the right side.

I wonder if any surviving Vietnamese Boat People are among the thousands of people in Ayers' acquaintance.

It's appalling, that after the North Vietnamese cleansing of South Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge genocide, the scorched-earth Indochinese wars, and decades of single-party rule by the communist government of Vietnam, that Ayers' moral awareness terminates in 1971. What a cretin.

HoosierSo maybe the press should be asking these Republicans who took money from backers of Bill Ayers instead of Obama then? Granted it's not as sexy as the whole spooky Black Marxist Terrorist thing....

One line seemed interesting to me, something like "someone I took the bus with downtown." he did not say specifically that he took the bus downtown with Obama but when I lived in Hyde Park I often did take the express bus downtown for a class and for two jobs. I was not sure if he meant to say that he did do that with Obama to attend the board meetings but it would not seem surprising before he was a US Senator, easiest way to get to the Loop from Hyde Park. It is a long bus ride and you have a lot of time to talk.

Apparently the majority of the US is okay with a President having unexplored connections to an unrepentant terrorist.

Pardon me if I ignore Ayer's bloviations. Pardon me if I am no longer concerned about Ayer's past or his associations with Obama. Fuck the news media for their exposus interruptus, stalling until after the big Obamagasm to tell us the dirty secrets about their new political lover. Oh! If i'd only known!!

Because it is quite clear that Ayer's view of the world is prevailing. The radical boomers have indeed won, 'by any means necessary' has worked, and now we'll see what happens. I predict this is gonna really suck, but my opinion and 4 bucks will by me a grande mocha at Starbucks.

"Don't we still want to know what we couldn't find out before the election? "Me? Not any more. It has no effect. Yes, John, you can get away with murder. You can have serious problems remain uninvestigated in your past, views that you never explain, shady and unAmerican associates, and still become President.

What diffeence could it possibly make to find out now? Knowing it before wouldn't have swayed anyone's minds.

America is cool with a man who has radical socialist teachers and associations, even consorting with terrorists and racist preachers. Knowing more about that now does what exactly?

If the uncertainty didn't alarm you before, the certainty shouldn't now.

The interview was less of a substantive explanation of the Obama/Ayers relationship than a self-important lecture from Ayers on "What's Wrong with Amerikkka." Thanks, ABCNews, I couldn't have expected anything less.

This gets it backwards, IMO. If Obama and Ayers were fishing buddies it would be trivial, because people don't normally pick their personal friends with much of an eye to politics. Having Ayers for a political ally is a lot worse than having him for a friend.

HoosierSo maybe the press should be asking these Republicans who took money from backers of Bill Ayers instead of Obama then? Granted it's not as sexy as the whole spooky Black Marxist Terrorist thing....

Garage I think the focus was more on Obama's personal relationship with Ayres versus how much money Ayres donated to his campaign.

Honestly, if someone takes offense to being labeled as a marxist, it would behoove them not to hang around them or mention in your memoirs they were the circle of people you hung around with in college.

The rejoinder that a dead billionaire's philanthropic foundation donated money to that educational foundation as representing some sort of justification or validation of Obama's relationship with Ayers is a red herring and just another DNC talking point.

It was Annenburg's foundation, not the man himself. People do all sorts of stuff with a dead guy's money after he is gone. Especially those who run "foundations" with his money. That doesn't mean the man himself would have approved.

John Kerry got a whole lot of financial benefit out of being married to the widow of dead billionaire John Heinz. That doesn't mean Heinz himself would have voted for Kerry.

And is "taking money from BACKERS of Bill Ayers" the equivalent of: taking money from Bill Ayers directly; or Bill Ayers babysitting your kids; or Bill Ayers helping launch your political career in his living room; or Bill Ayers being a personal political soulmate?

Seems like apples and oranges to me.

But again, nobody who voted for Obama should be giving a shit now, about any of this, since you didn't give a shit about it before the election. And it is disengenous for any Obama voter to NOT be telling people who dare ask questions NOW, to just "shut up with your bigoted racial codewords." A little consistency please. Stay true to yourselves.

HoosierThe foundation was founded and funded with 50 million dollars from a Republican billionaire who gave money to Republicans like Romney and McCain and not to any Democrats. Are Romney and McCain Marxists? Don't you want to know who these other Republicans are that served on the board so you can out them too?

It's appalling, that after the North Vietnamese cleansing of South Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge genocide, the scorched-earth Indochinese wars, and decades of single-party rule by the communist government of Vietnam, that Ayers' moral awareness terminates in 1971.

Just like in Iraq, they don't care if a bunch of them are being butchered, just as long as its not being done by US Marines.

I can guarantee you that the "Save Darfur" bumper stickers adorning Prius and Volkswagons would be covered with WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER the minute we started saving Darfur with the 3rd ID.

HoosierThe foundation was founded and funded with 50 million dollars from a Republican billionaire who gave money to Republicans like Romney and McCain and not to any Democrats. Are Romney and McCain Marxists? Don't you want to know who these other Republicans are that served on the board so you can out them too?

If those GOP careers were launched from Ayres living room then yes I would.

You seem to be ignoring the bigger point I and others have been trying to make. Obama's own words, in speech and print have painted him as a marxist if not an extreme leftist. His association with Ayres simply raised one more flag for me.

If it was just a matter of sharing a seat at a Board of Directors table, I would be the first to say the charges were absurd. Honestly if you can't see the difference then lets just agree to disagree. It won't be a precedent breaking event.

Amazing that all the talk for the last 8 years centered around the evil Carl Rove. Turns out the democrats had their own "light sabre" in David Axelrod.

Serious inquiry would include Axelrod's ties to the media and his astro-turfing of the Obama campaign using the internet. On top of that, the good money is resting on Obama's campaing being long on the feel good yet meaningless dreamy rhetoric of hope, change, and promise.

Axelrod has foisted Obama on the nation and will quietly disappear back into the murky swamps of Chicago. Obama is on his own. I remember the movie with Redford as Bill McKay's "The Candidate." Obama has Redford's smile.

Once elected, Redford asked, "Now what?"

We are about to find out the difference between conscience and ambition. I wager Pelosi and Reid are salivating in the background.

"It's appalling, that after the North Vietnamese cleansing of South Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge genocide, the scorched-earth Indochinese wars, and decades of single-party rule by the communist government of Vietnam"

I would expect that Ayers sees this as a feature, not a bug. He is on record stating that they might have to kill as many as 25 million Americans in order to usher in their utopia (imagine if a friend of Bush's had said that). He and his ilk would do well to know that some of us won't go quietly.

Yeah, in the face of an major economic downturn, a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and rising challenges in the form of China and a resurgent Russia, we really need to worry about some washed up terrorist and the fact that the President-elect had some association with him.

I don't think the MSM is particularly interested in Ayers. It's just that they knew you people would flock to watch if they put him on. Good Morning America isn't exactly a forum for hard-hitting journalism.

Honestly, I don't know what is more pathetic, the warped priorities of the right wing and the news media, or the blatant attempts of commenters to distract themselves from how deeply screwed the conservative movement is right now.

I am a little confused at why Professor Ayers is, in any way shape or form, opposed to "guilt by association."

He was a (proud then, and STILL proud) member of a group who targeted for murder, people who were "guilty by association" by way of their employment with a "criminal" U.S. government? Right?

Seems like "guilt by association" is not only legit, it's groovy man.

I suppose it is sort of like hating the Fuzz or the Pigs, except when some obnoxious crew from Fox News is banging on your door demanding an interview - then the policeman is re-defined as somebody helpful you call for assistance.

I better check to make sure the Annenburg Foundation has not donated any money to my school, from which I received a partial tuition scholarship. According the logic of certain Obama defenders, that might put me perilously close to the realm of being associated with certain distinguished Professors.

I've found that Steve Diamond's the best person to read on this issue. He's a left-wing guy and is coming at it from a different angle than, say, Stanley Kurtz or David Freddoso. Here's how he sees Obama's path to power:

He could have joined the labor movement, he could have joined mainstream civil rights groups, he could have joined a mainstream law firm and then the U.S. Attorney's or State's Attorney's offices. All of these, however, would have required years of hard work and apprenticeship.

Instead, Obama cozied up to the what was left over on the South Side from an earlier activist era. Now it was Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Judson Miner, Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod and Bernardine Dohrn, who offered him mentorship and connections on an alternative road to power. These individuals are not just representative of the odd politics of Chicago. They are linked to a wider national milieu of politically correct and authoritarian political activists that include people who are more comfortable with the Chavez regime in Venezuela than they are with American democratic institutions like organized labor.

Also, I think the point of raising this issue now--apart from a simple better late than never--would be to make it difficult or impossible for Obama to govern in a way that is too sympathetic to this crowd's world view.

If we look at a lot of people's associations, there would be questionable ties: G. Gordon Liddy, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove. The ride with Obama could not be ANY bumpier than the ride we've been on for the last 8 years (not to mention Reagan and Bush, Sr administrations with investigations and questions). The research on them and their ties is stunning.

I can see Althouse is starting to have serious buyer's remorse! Sorry Althouse, you bought him you have to live with it. There is not returning him for a refund! Crucially, what happened to "Cruel neutrality" when we really needed it?

Really, Ann, you don't deal in facts. You deal in assumptions, leaps to conclusions, leaps of faith, conjecture, speculation and projection.

For example: That answer is pure bullshit.backed up by all of the intellectually perilous "thinking processes" above.

Yeah, he and Obama were on a board together, Ayers concedes quickly when pressedHave you ever been on a Board? I've been on a number. And I barely know most of the people I was on these Boards with. That proves ZERO and means nothing.

As for the shortcomings of guilt by association, You seem ignorant to the ethical shortcomings of this. Of the problem of saying that the American people should go about shunning their neighbors until we have a full background check on everyone. Or that it is bad to deal with a given person who has done something bad in their life.

Have you ever associated with anyone that has a checkered past, Ann? Do you run background checks on your associates?

he is associating with someone who thinks the United States has conducted and continues to conduct despicable unjust wars that must be stopped.We're now bombing villages and killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Democrats and Republicans have decried the practice. Many thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by the US. Do you really think a citizen's job is to shut their yap when the government is behaving badly? See: "Good German Mentality."

I couldn't even read through this post. Ann, you show no independence of thought from the right wing on this attack meme. Holding Barack Obama responsible for what Ayers did decades ago is unethical, distracting and dumb. And here you are, chumming those waters.

If Ayres was smart, he'd realize he didn't even need the police. You just get a few jars of tomato sauce, empty them in a bucket, go to a second floor window, attract their attention, and empty the bucket over their heads. Even Bill O'Reilly would be set to flight by that.

Even the most conservative of us have to laught at the prospect of Sean Hannity yelling into the camera: "He slimed me!"

The most amusing thing about your comment is that you effectively deny nothing that I wrote, but simply prove unable to grasp its significance.

And, by the way, what are these "liberials" you speak of? They can't be liberals, when you consider that the liberal JFK stood up to Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis, or that Democrat Harry Truman was the one who put the containment doctrine into effect.

I know this is hard for people of a certain advanced age to accept but THE SIXTIES ARE OVER! Trying to drag that narrative back for this election was idiotic. We are now as far from 1968 as 1928 was from that year. The cultral war and this brand of "Swift Boating" has now been put to rest.

"I know this is hard for people of a certain advanced age to accept but THE SIXTIES ARE OVER!"

Really? Tell that to Bill Ayers. Or tell that to Obama, whose entire platform seems to be a retrospective of ideas that failed 40 years ago.

It's funny how the lefties here, just like Bill Ayers, keep deflecting. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain that's standing on an American flag! Hope! Change! Swiftboating! It's almost like they're afraid of something...

Listen boys, your scam worked, you won, your guy is now our guy. Cut the deflection and the lying. Time to come clean, isn't it?

"The cultral war and this brand of "Swift Boating" has now been put to rest."

See?I told you so.There are lots of people with this kind of thinking. Radical leftism won. Their tactic of taking over the media and the schools was entirely successful.They're even stealing the election for the Minnesota Senate.Congrats.

This Second Great Depression is going to be long, like the first. And like the original one, it's going to end in serious violence. At the helm will be the least qualified man ever to be President, one who has no military skills, and who is even as anti-military as Clinton.

I'm trying to see the silver lining in all this. Maybe they'll be some choice stuff to loot.

"America is cool with a man who has radical socialist teachers and associations, even consorting with terrorists and racist preachers."

That's the essential point, Pogo. Americans were not the least bit interested in Obama's associations because they think it's okay, kind of cool, or justified, in light of America's horrible, horrible sins.That's the real triumph of November 4; Obama is just a symptom of the real disease.

As for Annenberg, look at the programs they fund, and you will see that his heirs fund left wing and anti-Israel programs, in the sorry tradition of trust fund baby liberalism.

"The cultral war and this brand of "Swift Boating" has now been put to rest."

Nope. Now that BO has won, Ayers is gong to be more visible and much more communicative. We are going to learn a lot more about those 'lost years' when they struggled against the man to reform Chicago's schools.

Ayers is going to be more and more in the public's face trying to rehabilitate his rep and his reasons.

"I can always visit Althouse and expect to find her utterly obsessed with trivialities."

Hey Althouse, you think the lefties were mean to you during the Bush administration? Wait till you start asking questions of Obama. The fact that you voted for him bought you exactly 24 hours of sympathy and love from them. Now you've gone and brought up something troubling about Obama. The honeymoon's over.

Ayers was recently invited to speak at the University of Nebraska (Lincoln) and when Nebraskans protested, he was uninvited. The Omaha World-Herald published an opinion piece by Ayers in which he said he thought the University would suffer by the decision to cancel the speech. He said, "Certainly no matter what a group of extrem­ists claimed they might do [...] I thought that the Nebraska state police could get me to the podium and I would handle myself from there." (The opinion piece is available to subscribers only. There is an associated article here.)

I think he is a bit overconfident in the desire of police officers to make sure he makes it anywhere near the microphone. In 1981, a different "group of extremists"--who just happened to include Weather Underground members--killed a Brinks guard and two police officers.

He also babbles about not being a terrorist. He says, "Ter­rorists use indiscriminate vio­lence and target the innocent, in­tending to kill and engender fear among people." So there you have it: When the Weathermen planned to bomb the dance at Fort Dix, it was because everyone at the dance was guilty of something.

The fact that you voted for him bought you exactly 24 hours of sympathy and love from them. Now you've gone and brought up something troubling about Obama.

No one gets love or sympathy from me solely for voting for Obama, if they did so out of (or despite) a complete and utter lack of thinking. And really, I was making fun of the idea of live-blogging an interview by a has-been terrorist who's only relevance was his use to a campaign that is now over.

On second thought, I hope conservatives continue to focus on "the cultral wars." I think it is a great strategy...FOR THE LEFT!

Agreed. Dear right-wing: please keep talking about Ayers through 2012 and beyond. In fact, I'll go ahead and start a contribution campaign for the first Ayers-Obama ad in the 2012 Palin campaign for President. Who's with me?

I did read what you read. Did he give money to Romney or McCain, or just Republicans like them? Like who, and when?

In the scheme of things, the bigger fallacy in your argument is innocence by association. Republican endows foundation, foundation gives money to unrepentant terrorist pushing lefty educational programs, voila, all is clean and beautiful.

For some reason, the left is in love with arguments from authority and association.

"I know this is hard for people of a certain advanced age to accept but THE SIXTIES ARE OVER!"

I wish. Obama actually said early in his campaign that he wanted to move past the Viet-Nam-centered, boomer-angst phase of American politics. Not bloody likely. He came up in politics smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of radical, privileged, and yes, whiter than white assholes who've been biding their time, waiting to be relevant again. Their revenge is complete.

"And like the original one, it's going to end in serious violence.You mean WWII?"

Of course. Serious economic strife is fertile ground for warfare, as it always has been. That's what's called 'critical thinking'.

"I wish liberals would take over the school systems."If you were serious about that belief, that is if you are unaware that that is already the case, then surely you are delusional. Or uneducated. Or obtuse. Or all three.

Do you actually think uptopian socialism does NOT create the conditions for violence?

Here's a snapshot from Weimar Germany:"For a time, Germans created a highly liberal political order with very substantial social welfare programs. The lives of so many ordinary people improved greatly: the working day was reduced to a more humane eight hours, at least in the first years of the republic, and unemployment insurance seemed to herald a new era that would protect workers from the vagaries of the business cycle. New public housing offered better-off workers and white-collar employees the chance to move out of old tenements into modern, clean apartments with indoor plumbing, gas stoves, and electricity. Women won the right to vote, and Germany had a lively free press. All sorts of plans were broached for creating the flourishing and harmonious society of the future, from nudism to communism. Sex therapists and popular activists asserted the right of everyone to a rich and fulfilling sexual life. Like the cinema, the spectacle-world of consumer goods conjured up the possibility of a different, more prosperous life, even if one had to return next morning at 7:00 AM to the workbench, office, or sales counter. Utopian beliefs emerged out of war and revolution. Surely the world could be completely transformed, whether—depending on the spokesperson—through modern architecture, photography, communal housing, or massed demonstrations in the streets: such confidence and conviction proved inspirational to so much artistic creation and philosophical rumination."

Such comfort, such caring, such optimism! Sound familiar? But I'm sure it will all work out better here with such magnificent leadership.

The grand victory of the left in public education is that the conditioning is so thorough(garage mahal, alpha liberal, etc..) that they don't even know they were brainwashed. Oceania's Inner Party secretary would be proud of this achievement. Big Brother loves you.

What "we" are telling you is PLEASE continue with your focus on trivia that so captures your imagination. Please DO NOT focus on the serious issues that face are nation. This is the domain of the adult party. The Democrats.

What "we" are telling you is PLEASE continue with your focus on trivia that so captures your imagination. Please DO NOT focus on the serious issues that face are nation. This is the domain of the adult party. The Democrats.

2:52 PM

More successful public school brainwashing on display. They were taught that terrorism is trivial. Big win for the left!

When I come by this website I do not scroll that far down. I am sorry I missed that thread. The "non-goofy" part of the conservative side is focused on what to do with the domestic auto industry. David Brooks has a really good piece in the NYT that I found convincing. While a serious conservative like Brooks would like to see the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crawl back under the rocks they came from, I personally dread that prospect.

Haha. L.E. Lee is the kind of person that whines and whines about people's obsession with "trivialities" and people ignoring "the important issues" but actually has nothing to say about those "big issues". Liberals love to congratulate themselves on how smart they are, yet the only thing they ever seem to do is bitch about conservatives and the only ideas they ever have are at least 40 years old. I never see much progress from so-called progressives. Just whining and sarcasm.

"David Brooks has a really good piece in the NYT that I found convincing. While a serious conservative like Brooks would like to see the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crawl back under the rocks they came from, I personally dread that prospect."

Amazing how quickly Brooks became a "serious conservative". All it took was that one little pull of the "Obama/Biden" lever and POOF! Serious Conservative!

"Seriousness" in conservatives must mean "willingness to betray your so-called principles and vote for a soft-socialist just so you'll get invited to good cocktail parties". Note to conservatives: when "progressives" refer to someone as a "serious conservative", run away from that person as fast as possible.

Taking a good, conservative view of an issue makes Brooks a "serious conservative"?

I would think that a good test of whether someone is a "serious conservative" or not would be whether they think it is acceptable to vote for a socialist candidate, not whether they make a cogent conservative point or two. But your mileage will probably vary, L.E. Lee.

In an interview published in 1995, Ayers characterized his political beliefs at that time and in the 1960s and 1970s: "I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ... [Laughs] Maybe I'm the last communist who is willing to admit it. [Laughs] We have always been small 'c' communists in the sense that we were never in the Communist party and never Stalinists. The ethics of communism still appeal to me.---

60s, 70s, 80s, 90s:Ayers = ethical communist

00s ((((crickets)))

(Except for taking advantage of his Marxist-given right to call upon the police to protect him from the mean pinkos asking him questions!)

Darcy, what makes Brooks a "serious conservative" is that he is a serious person who argues from conservative principles. Also, while I did not go into the voting booth with Mr. Brooks, I am sure he did not vote for the socialist candidate. So, I do not know what you are talking about.

Kick Brooks out of the shrinking conservative tent. I think that is a great move for you conservatives.

I have been reading Brooks for years. He does argue from a PRINCIPLED conservative perspective. I realize that you can not look beyond your POLITICAL conservative bunker. Brooks also represents a value that conservatives use to espouse. That being PRUDENCE, both intellectual and otherwise.

But, once again, I appreciate your lack of prudence and hope your band of conservatives reject Brooks.

I like David Brooks. He's perceptive and astute and funny. I'm glad to have him "in the conservative tent." My point, if you will read my post just cursorily, is that he does not argue from conservative principles. He's a big-government Republican, like Bush.

It's not surprising that you didn't get that, Lee. I doubt you read very well and I doubt you understand conservative principles.

Actually, L.E. Lee, I didn't allege that Brooks voted for Obama. In his column calling Palin a cancer to the Republican party, I would say he stopped just short of endorsing Obama. This is what caused me to believe he thought Obama (the socialist candidate, IMO) was an acceptable choice.

Fuck Ayers. So he hates America. That makes him just like most of the humanities and social sciences professors in North America. He's a washed up, dried out old terrorist turd who wouldn't last 12 minutes in the kind of lefty utopia he dreams of. Fuck him.

How did this thread morph from a discussion of Ayers and Obama to a discussion about Brooks? A liberal acquaintance of mine recently asked me what I thought about Brooks. Who??? Don't I read the NYT? Ah, no. So does Brooks write anywhere else? Bad enough my wife won't let me cancel our subscription to the Washington Post but the NYT? Does anybody read that sad excuse for a newspaper anymore?

Getting back to Ayers and Obama, given that the President-elect stonewalled so assertively about his old neighbor suggests to me that there was more there than meets the eye. But the question isn't did he know the man and work with him -- for all I know the guy in the next office over from mine used to club baby seals. No, to me the problem is that it was through Ayers that Barack Obama got to be chairman of the board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He had, apparently, $150M give or take to help the kids stuck in Chicago schools. And the final report is as damning as anything you could want -- the net result was nothing. No improvements when contrasted with schools that did not receive CAC dollars. Not better in math, not better in reading, not better in science, nothing.

The only major politician of either party who has ever done anything to improve the lot of black kids in the public schools is George W. Bush, through the flawed -- but vastly better than what was there before -- "No child left behind" program. And if you mention NCLB in front of a liberal you'll be treated to a display of invective and frothing at the mouth like I didn't know humans could do. Doesn't anybody on the left actually care about those kids?

No one's mentioned the whole point of this: To get this behind BHO so that it is a non-issue for 2012

Are you freaking serious? You think the election wasn't just a referendum on that? You really think if it didn't work this time, it's going to work the SECOND time around, four years later? Dude...it's ALL old news now. The next election will be about his performance, not ANOTHER round of non-stories about ACORN.

Just a little tip: When you guys come in here acting all outraged, and to the "what drugs are you on" thing, you just look like dull, unimaginative clones.

I've said here that in four years we'll know whether Obama's association with Ayers matters and so, in that sense, it won't matter.

But you're wrong to think that it's all been out there. Most people don't really know much about Ayers, and even less about Obama's infanticide-lovin' gun-hatin' ways. Needless to say, they know nothing at all of the credit fraud and election violations that powered his campaign.

We don't know what the big issues in the next election will be yet, so might as well do the spin control.

And, even worse, Clinton's bimbo eruptions--long after they should've been old news--probably didn't help Gore. So, yeah, I think people are thinking 2016 already. Ick.

"Why would a Republican billionaire philanthropist give millions to a program associated with Bill Ayers? Why would the board be comprised of other Republicans? Why would McCain brag about being endorsed by Leonore Annenberg? Why would other members of that board contribute to McCain?"

Interesting thoughts, Big Mike. My two cents is that the leftist mindset is always authoritarian. Good-hearted authoritarian, you understand, but no less authoritarian for that. Therefore, the left wants to make public education succeed on its own terms. No charter schools. No vouchers. Nothing except what is on the agenda from 1975, and before that 1935, and before that 1789.

How do you do that? Well, bigger government and more money, of course.

To the conservative, who wants to fix what is bad while trying to preserve what is good, this sounds absurd. And it is.

I linked to your RSS feed after following your blog the last 2 weeks before the election. Then you followed up with Glenn Reynolds in a mutual, butt-kissing. Now you seem determined to prove you're tough. Who or what you are, I don't know. Figure it out, please. You're trying to "be" something, and the result is disappointing.

Also, you said:

"So if Obama associates with Ayers now, he is associating with someone who thinks the United States has conducted and continues to conduct despicable unjust wars that must be stopped. If Obama had presented himself as having this kind of militant, anti-war attitude..."

1. Who said Obama is associating himself with Ayers now?? This is beyond ridiculous. Ayers is on "Good Morning America"... IS THERE A LOGICAL CONNECTION?

2. Do you think Obama should have a "pro-war" attitude? Ayer's "anti-war" attitude is shared by a great many generals and regular soldiers. We may all disagree with his actions, but what he wants (to not be engaged in wars, especially wrong headed ones) is something most American agree with.

I don't know why I bother to write this. I doubt you think logically before you write this way anyway; it's all about how the post will play -- isn't it? Just like Reynolds. Coy, shifting, manipulating, and getting paid well as the audience of idiots grows.

2. Do you think Obama should have a "pro-war" attitude? Ayer's "anti-war" attitude is shared by a great many generals and regular soldiers. We may all disagree with his actions, but what he wants (to not be engaged in wars, especially wrong headed ones) is something most American agree with.

I doubt very much that objection to an American war is seen by most Americans--and ZERO generals--as a rationale to engage in bombing campaigns against policemen and soldiers. Oh, and bank heists.

Some of these great anti-war lines from Ayers should be kept fresh in memory, for instance, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." Since his own parents were rich — it seems that a psychoanalyst would be the the right person to figure out his politics.

Pro-war, anti-war, these are not sentiments in which heads of state can indulge themselves, without risking disaster. Clausewitz: "War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." Neville Chamberlain was anti-war. See what that got for him, and for the rest of the world.

Here's a song, you could call it the Ballad of Neville Chamberlain: The Strangest Dream. The sort of wishful thinking that appeals to adolescents. It was November 11 just a few days ago, Armistice Day, marking the end of the Great War that was to put an end to all wars. That worked out really well.

prairie wind said... I think he is a bit overconfident in the desire of police officers to make sure he makes it anywhere near the microphone. In 1981, a different "group of extremists"--who just happened to include Weather Underground members--killed a Brinks guard and two police officers.

note that History didn't end for Ayers in 1971, his buddies were killing cops in 1981, and his wife was an accomplice. google "Broadway baby" for Dohrn's role in the identity theft that crated the false ID's for the killers.

The WaPo, that icon of the VRWC, took Obama to task today on his education policy. Specificly that he wants to stop vouchers for poor DC kids to attend private schools like Georgetown Day, and Sidwell Friends, while at the same time, Michelle has decided that DC Public schools aren't right for her daughters and is going to send them to GDS or Sidwell.